David Levine wrote:
I took a quick look at your dynamic allocation and it looks
fine to me
It hasn't got to me yet, but I had a look at it in the list archive, and
this line of the patch:
+ i +- namebufsiz;
looks very dubious to me :-)
It's also got at least one unrelated change in it:
+ if(uprf(cp, "re:") || uprf(cp, "fw:"))
Other than that, it's not as invasive a patch as I'd feared it might be,
but I still vote to put it on ice until we have some decent tests.
-- PMM
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers